Lightly altered using artificial intelligence to obscure the original writer:
I used to work at Palantir, and this article strikes me as reasonably balanced. The key question, as I see it, is "what other options do we have?" This applies both narrowly (alternatives to Palantir specifically) and broadly (alternatives to upgrading our government's technological capabilities).
On the broader point, I doubt Americans will tolerate a technologically backward government much longer. The extraordinary latitude given to DOGE reflects mounting frustration with fundamental governmental inefficiency (which various bad actors are certainly exploiting). Citizens won't stand for a government that stays technologically frozen while everything else rapidly advances.
Therefore, we must modernize government. While I don't think our current circumstances constituted the kind of crisis that might warrant DOGE's reckless approach, sufficient neglect would eventually create exactly that crisis.
This brings us to the narrower question: how do we actually accomplish this? The concerns being raised are undeniably legitimate. We (as Americans) shouldn't construct a surveillance state, not even under a benevolent administration and certainly not under this one.
From my perspective, Palantir represents the best path forward due to the relative imbalance between positive and negative potential outcomes. Nothing makes Palantir uniquely suited for malicious purposes in this scenario. The real barriers are cultural, legal, and institutional rather than technological. Anyone could combine large datasets and perform the same analytical work that Palantir facilitates using countless commercial or open-source alternatives.
However, if you want to harness modern technology's benefits while avoiding its dangers, Palantir offers unique advantages. Creating comprehensive unified datasets within Palantir would provide significantly more mechanisms and controls for managing their application than any other platform.
I simply don't believe that deliberately limiting our government's technological infrastructure is a workable approach to protecting Americans. Laws will be regrettably our only real protection over time, and Palantir's platform is uniquely suited to "encode" those laws into software to guarantee compliance but we need those laws and functioning institutions to enforce them.
JohnFen•2h ago
> Citizens won't stand for a government that stays technologically frozen while everything else rapidly advances.
I don't think that citizens care about how technologically frozen the government may or may not be. I think they care about whether or not the government is operating as it should. Those are two different things.
> Palantir represents the best path forward due to the relative imbalance between positive and negative potential outcomes.
I envy you your optimism. I think Palantir represents a very serious threat to this nation. Certainly not the only one, but a serious threat nonetheless.
sublimepulse819•2h ago
> I don't think that citizens care about how technologically frozen the government may or may not be. I think they care about whether or not the government is operating as it should. Those are two different things.
In theory yes. In practice, maybe you care to explain how a government can operate "as it should" where "should" is a target that seems to move with "not apparently dysfunctional as compared to private services I use every day?"
> Palantir represents the best path forward...
This got too washed by the LLM. I meant to say Palantir software is by far the best option for this. Palantir the company has worrying affiliations via Thiel. I think it would mitigate a lot of downside risk for the country for Thiel to be divested.
My comment shouldn't be interpreted as optimism. It is a call for citizens to demand their rights be encoded into statute instead of de facto protected by dysfunction because the dysfunction is a liability of its own.
sublimepulse819•3h ago
I used to work at Palantir, and this article strikes me as reasonably balanced. The key question, as I see it, is "what other options do we have?" This applies both narrowly (alternatives to Palantir specifically) and broadly (alternatives to upgrading our government's technological capabilities).
On the broader point, I doubt Americans will tolerate a technologically backward government much longer. The extraordinary latitude given to DOGE reflects mounting frustration with fundamental governmental inefficiency (which various bad actors are certainly exploiting). Citizens won't stand for a government that stays technologically frozen while everything else rapidly advances.
Therefore, we must modernize government. While I don't think our current circumstances constituted the kind of crisis that might warrant DOGE's reckless approach, sufficient neglect would eventually create exactly that crisis.
This brings us to the narrower question: how do we actually accomplish this? The concerns being raised are undeniably legitimate. We (as Americans) shouldn't construct a surveillance state, not even under a benevolent administration and certainly not under this one.
From my perspective, Palantir represents the best path forward due to the relative imbalance between positive and negative potential outcomes. Nothing makes Palantir uniquely suited for malicious purposes in this scenario. The real barriers are cultural, legal, and institutional rather than technological. Anyone could combine large datasets and perform the same analytical work that Palantir facilitates using countless commercial or open-source alternatives.
However, if you want to harness modern technology's benefits while avoiding its dangers, Palantir offers unique advantages. Creating comprehensive unified datasets within Palantir would provide significantly more mechanisms and controls for managing their application than any other platform.
I simply don't believe that deliberately limiting our government's technological infrastructure is a workable approach to protecting Americans. Laws will be regrettably our only real protection over time, and Palantir's platform is uniquely suited to "encode" those laws into software to guarantee compliance but we need those laws and functioning institutions to enforce them.
JohnFen•2h ago
I don't think that citizens care about how technologically frozen the government may or may not be. I think they care about whether or not the government is operating as it should. Those are two different things.
> Palantir represents the best path forward due to the relative imbalance between positive and negative potential outcomes.
I envy you your optimism. I think Palantir represents a very serious threat to this nation. Certainly not the only one, but a serious threat nonetheless.
sublimepulse819•2h ago
In theory yes. In practice, maybe you care to explain how a government can operate "as it should" where "should" is a target that seems to move with "not apparently dysfunctional as compared to private services I use every day?"
> Palantir represents the best path forward...
This got too washed by the LLM. I meant to say Palantir software is by far the best option for this. Palantir the company has worrying affiliations via Thiel. I think it would mitigate a lot of downside risk for the country for Thiel to be divested.
My comment shouldn't be interpreted as optimism. It is a call for citizens to demand their rights be encoded into statute instead of de facto protected by dysfunction because the dysfunction is a liability of its own.